I wish to make a simple assertion: That a very large % of crime and social dysfunctionality is not a function of absolute level of of resource access (i.e. poverty).

My claim is that a considerable % of violent, deviant and dysfunctional behaviour is a result of an individual's pereceived RELATIVE position in society and not just a lack of resources.

I make this  claim based on the following: Absolute level of resources available to all levels of Australian society have increased since WWII. Yet violent crime especially has been on the increase since 2000 (AIC figures).

In practical terms, anyone can fall down in the street. Most people have mobiles to call 000 and an ambulance will turn up. In hospital they will receive world class care, surgery, rehab and if unfit for work, a pension for life. It is not possible for any Australian to starve. Some may be temporarily homeless, but this is often a result of emotional and family issues. With low unemployment, plenty of menial jobs are available and will allow people to survive quite well. Certainly better than much of SE asia.

If relative position is the driving factor (I am on the bottom, and that
is unfair no matter how well I live) then crime will always be with us since we are primarily social primates with an acute sense of relative position.

If we didn't have migrants or some other group then we would find minor differences amongst ourselves to create a hierarchy. This is the point of Gulliver's Travels where how one opens an egg defines a group, their alien-ness and our fear of them.

If this assertion is correct then no amount of resourcing will assist in the prevention of crime or the creation of ghettos. All ghettos are a paradise compared to somalia, yet the fact that its inhabitants are on the bottom of society is not lost on them and breeds resentment and nonparticipation that is expressed in crime, addiction, poor education, teen birth rates etc.

If this assertion is true then it is logical to conclude that no amount of resourcing will change it and a different kind of policy is required.

Quote:


Crikey, where to begin...

Is 'crime' exclusively - or even predominantly - committed by poor people?

Is corruption not a 'crime'?

Is not the emphasis of our legal system unduly-focused on upon petty property-related crimes that the under-privileged are more prone to committing - and unduly-lax on those of better means (i.e. the white collared and the silvertailed) who are in a convenient position to engage in higher-stakes exploitation/criminality/corruption with much deeper and wider-reaching consequences (and effectively-exclusive access to lawyers who are willing to sell their souls for $$$ and perhaps also 'associated with' bent judges)!?

Do you believe that there is no insidious systemic socio-economic and legal discrimination against certain ethnic and other demographic groups in our society!?

Have you actually reviewed the official trends in crime statistics over the period you mentioned - or are you relying solely upon your own perceptions of criminality!?

Of course, in the context of the OP, these questions are purely rhetorical...


Edited:

iconoclast wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 10:57am:


Were Bond, Skase and Adler (for example) born relatively-poor and under-privileged wretches?

Is that what drove them to steal from a great many people - or did they just have an egocentric hunger for power and/or an amoral sense of entitlement to rip others off?

And, the answer is -

Given the nature of some unlawful behaviour in elite circles, and their perceived elevated social standing, they may be inclined to think they are above the law.

Thus be more inclined to commit such acts as though getting away with these acts themselves were confirmation of their own autonomy?

May serve to reinforce their own grandiose affect?

I think it comes down to a self justified/rationalised (falsely or otherwise) perceived entitlement...

A peasant will justify stealing a loaf of bread, as readily as a businessman will justify embezzlement in many cases.

However, as we all know, some crimes cant be put down to perceived need, rather they are committed out of pure selfishness, indulgence,  a self perceived entitlement to a-type-of-crime the lesser classes aren't  privileged to......even when this is at the expense of others who may not have had the opportunity to define their own existence, much less class yet.

These sorts of people take comfort in their deprivation alone not having altered the outcome of the 'victims' lives to any 'measurable' or great extent, so don't see their 'contributory' deviant acts alone as being harmful, or themselves accountable even.

Quote:



I feel the major flaw in the argument is the very high probability that neither of these options are the one primary cause though they can both be minor contributors.

It is nowhere near as simplistic as this or it would be no problem as it could be easily fixed.

Or, perhaps it's just the rise of violent white supremacists and homophobes...

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1297475999/69#69

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 3:58pm:

Equitist wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 11:18am:



I am not Nic or whoever. My point is a very simple one which most commentators have missed. If access to resources is greater than in the past and most people can survive in our community via govt, then "poverty" as it exists in Oz cannot be an excuse for crime. Yes, other forms of crime exist and these are unlikely to be affected by poverty- via homelessness, starvation etc. At one time, poverty was real poverty and a legitimate excuse for committing crimes in order to survive. But my point is very simple- the need to physically survive is no longer an justification for criminality whereas at one point in history it actually was.